Re: Brexit
 

How do you know this? Davis was very much someone who believed in Leave. Did he just go to Brussels and become soft? Or was the reality of Brexit too much for him?

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...n#post35971309

While Old Boy isn't advocating this as a course of action, it's definitely out there as an idea we can just walk away from the £39bn and it's somehow tied to the deal. Ignoring that is ignoring reality.

So what do we use as our leverage in these discussions, if not the £39bn?

The discussion is much wider than just what you say - it's a far bigger issue than anything that only you or I raise.

Re: Brexit
 

It’s quite clear that no one wants a fudge.

Both sides are as polarised as they have ever been.

It’s becoming evermore clear that a binary hard choice is ahead.

Remain or no deal.

Either could be cataclysmic to the UK. For differing reasons. It entering a very interesting time.

We’ll have to wait for parliament’s vote before speculate further.

---------- Post added at 21:05 ---------- Previous post was at 21:03 ----------

We there you go then, therefore we will never get a good deal. With that approach.

Re: Brexit
 

How would remain, the status quo,be cataclysmic?

Re: Brexit
 

Their minds would explode.

Re: Brexit
 

I don't see why we should be concerned about how much damage it would cause to an institution we are walking away from :eh:

Re: Brexit
 

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Re: Brexit
 

If we negotiate without considering this then we aren't negotiating at all.

The potential damage (or lack thereof) to the EU should define the extent to which their stance is reasonable or unreasonable to us when weighed against the damage to our economy.

All capitalist transactions are based on the relative needs and value to both parties.

Re: Brexit
 

He had to resign, Raab had to resign. Because the negotiating stance is coming from No.10 and no where else.


Ha.....£39bn is peanuts. We’re talking our future trade relationship with the EU, that is what is up for negotiation

https://researchbriefings.parliament...mmary/CBP-7851

£341 billion a year, is what we buy from the EU. £39bn is all but a 10th of that.

The EU (and it’s members that rely on this trade) will not stand by and see pissed in the wind.

Re: Brexit
 

Who is this aimed at ?

Re: Brexit
 

Because it would potentially be the biggest betrayal of democracy this country, if not the West, has ever seen.

Parliament may struggle to retain it’s authority.

---------- Post added at 21:20 ---------- Previous post was at 21:17 ----------

There is a lot of potential damage to the EU. Although they have’t had To face that down yet because they have never once thought that we would walk away.

Re: Brexit
 

UK exports to the EU: £274bn, 44% of all our exports.

We have a trade surplus due to trade in services which arguably are easier to source from other Member States (or indeed - financial services could move from the UK into EU countries).

We have a trade deficit in goods (as in we rely more on the EU for physical items). Could we easily source these from elsewhere? What increased costs will there be in transport for this? Or will we just end up paying more in tariffs?

The idea that mutual trade which benefits both parties can be used for us to "hold them over a barrel" is ridiculous in the extreme.

Re: Brexit
 

It was 20,000 polled by Survation for Channel 4, Carth.

Re: Brexit
 

You’re doing it again.....


Who are you quoting?

No one has said that, you’ve made up a quote by nobody and are then using it for your argument.

Re: Brexit
 

Nobody specifically.

I was referencing the only cataclysm that would result from the status quo being the reaction of those who feel passionately against it.

I don't believe this reaction would be physical in the form of civil disobedience or protests.

I apologise if anyone interpreted that differently.

---------- Post added at 21:29 ---------- Previous post was at 21:27 ----------

You may not have used the exact words, but your intent is that this gives us strength in the negotiations. I've used a turn of phrase in quotation marks that I wouldn't ordinarily use.

Are you now making the contention that you didn't mean that this gives us a significant negotiating advantage?

Your actual words: "The EU (and it’s members that rely on this trade) will not stand by and see pissed in the wind."

Re: Brexit
 

Well, judging by the last pro-Brexit rally of four people, I don't think the Police will have too many issues on their hands if Brexit doesn't happen.

However, I do think:
1) That the court next Thursday will state that Article 50 can be withdrawn
2) That Theresa May will get her deal through Parliament. If the first event happens as I predict, it could make her position stronger as she can argue my Brexit or no Brexit.